[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2156-S2158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES 
   WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN 
              AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

  Mr. SCHIFF. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C 1546(a) and section 601(b) of the 
International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move 
to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further 
consideration of S.J. Res. 184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations, S.J. Res. 184, a joint resolution to direct the 
     removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within 
     or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been 
     authorized by Congress.

  Mr. SCHIFF. For the last 8 weeks, I have taken to the Senate floor to 
oppose the Iran war. I have pointed out the lack of an imminent threat 
from Iran and the shifting justifications for the war.
  I have enumerated the many costs of the war in blood and in treasure, 
in higher gas prices and costs of groceries. And I have lamented the 
loss of 13 servicemembers including a Californian and the injury of 
scores of others.
  Today, I rise to sound the alarm about another risk of this war and 
that is that the administration is poised to violate the War Powers Act 
and that if we permit such a flagrant violation of the law, we, the 
Senate, and the Congress, will have surrendered the war power 
completely to the Executive.
  This would be enormously dangerous and wrongheaded. I believe it is 
also in direct contravention of the Constitution and our duty to uphold 
it.
  At midnight tonight, it will be the 60th day since Donald Trump 
notified Congress under the War Powers Act that we were at war with 
Iran--60 days. It is also a moment that some of my Republican 
colleagues have pointed to as a turning point in their consideration of 
the legal and constitutional bases for the Iran war.
  That is because under the War Powers Act of 1973, a President is 
legally mandated to remove military forces from a conflict if Congress 
has not voted to authorize it within those 60 days.
  As we have all acknowledged, the President can order military action 
in response to an armed attack or the imminent threat of an attack if 
those dangers require immediate action, but that power and 
responsibility is not unlimited.
  After 60 days, he must seek an authorization from Congress to 
continue the war or, failing to receive it, he must order the 
withdrawal of our forces.
  Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle have argued that the 
President properly began this war because they believe that we faced 
some form of an immediate threat to our forces or our allies. But they 
have also affirmed that the President's authority to use military force 
expires after the 60 days set out in the War Powers Act.
  Now, I strongly disagree with the argument that we faced an attack--
or an imminent threat of attack--from Iran, justifying this war. But I 
respect the fact that some of my Republican colleagues have 
acknowledged that authority, if it exists, lapses tomorrow night.
  This military operation has been carried out by the Commander in 
Chief for the past 60 days. We have multiple carrier strike groups, 
tens of thousands of servicemembers, pilots and sailors and soldiers 
and marines, all serving halfway around the world and now for 60 days.
  In addition to the 13 servicemembers who have lost their lives, more 
than 200 others have been seriously--or have been injured, and some 
seriously. The letter of the law is clear. This is what the act says 
``Within sixty calendar days after a report''--and that is a report on 
the beginning of hostilities like the one we received from the 
President on March 2--``Within sixty calendar days . . . the President 
shall terminate any use of the United States Armed Forces with respect 
to which such report was submitted . . .''
  ``Shall terminate.''
  That is ``Unless the Congress has declared war or has enacted a 
specific authorization for such use of [the] United States Armed 
Forces.''
  Now this is important. The law does not turn on the introduction of 
an authorization to use force or committee consideration of such an 
authorization or even a Senate floor vote on an authorization. No, the 
law requires the enactment of a war authorization. Failing that, the 
law requires the President to remove U.S. forces.
  This is the case unless the Congress changes the War Powers Act 
itself, which we have not done, or cannot meet as a result of an 
attack, which is demonstrably not the case because, well, we are all 
here.
  Those are the only two carve-outs. There are no other exceptions. If 
the President is still using the military for the same purpose as he 
was 60 days earlier and there has been no authorization of military 
force enacted--or war

[[Page S2157]]

declaration--the President must terminate this use of force until 
Congress says otherwise.
  Now, some might argue that because we are not currently bombing 
Iran--because there is a tentative cease-fire in place--that somehow 
the War Powers Act no longer applies, that somehow the war powers clock 
stops ticking. But this is simply not true.
  The United States Navy is still being used to interdict Iranian ships 
or ships embarking from Iranian ports. We are still using our Navy to 
blockade Iran. Our servicemembers are still at risk. And there is no 
provision in the War Powers Act to suspend the clock when military 
force is used in one respect but not another.
  For the law says:

       The President shall terminate any use of [the] United 
     States Armed Forces . . .

  There is no exception made for the Navy or the use of naval forces. 
Now, the law allows for a 30-day period for a safe withdrawal if the 
administration seeks it, but the President has not requested one. It is 
important to note that the purpose for an extension is explicit in the 
law. It exists:

       If the President determines and certifies to the Congress 
     in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the 
     safety of [the] United States Armed Forces requires the 
     continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing 
     about a prompt removal of such forces.

  The President has made no such certification.
  And so I say to my colleagues: This is the moment you have pointed to 
and waited for. This is the moment when Congress must assert itself. 
This is the moment when we must recognize that the Founders gave 
Congress alone the power to authorize war. The moment of reflection and 
action that you have identified--and I respect you for doing so--is 
here.

  And we must take action. We should all bear in mind that today's vote 
is simply to bring a resolution to the floor to discharge my resolution 
S.J. Res. 184 from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that it 
can be debated by the Senate. That will happen well after the 60-day 
clock has expired.
  Colleagues, we must not move the goalposts again. If we do, we 
surrender all authority to authorize war to the President, and he 
already has enough power. What we have remaining is already so greatly 
diminished, already a poor reflection--a mere shadow--of the power 
granted to us by the Constitution and our Founders.
  The War Powers Act was a product of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement 
which took years to negotiate in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, 
another deeply unpopular war that stretched far longer than the 
American people wanted.
  Consider the words of one of the law's authors Senator Jacob Javits a 
Republican Senator from New York, words he spoke on the Senate floor 
while Senators overrode a Presidential veto of this law with a full 75 
votes in the Senate and nearly 300 in the House.
  Senator Javits said ``No one is impairing the President's authority 
to carry on the foreign policy of this country. Let us not confuse this 
with foreign policy. Foreign policy does not mean war, and war does not 
mean foreign policy, unless there is a breakdown or failure of foreign 
policy. Congress is determined to recapture for ourselves the 
representatives of the people at the State level in the Senate and as 
the House did on the local level, the awesome power to make war. When 
we judge, by this measure''--he said--``that an incident would become a 
war, then we, and we alone, have the right to decide that it shall go 
on into war or that it shall stop. For the Constitution lays upon the 
Congress, unmistakably, the responsibility of deciding whether or not 
the state of our Nation should be changed from peace to war.''
  Senator Javits understood the criticism that would be leveled against 
the act--and those who supported it--by President Nixon and his allies, 
but he also understood that the Constitution was clear. And he helped 
draft a law that upheld, reinforced, and strengthened the separation of 
power between a Commander of Chief and a Congress empowered to 
authorize his use of that command for the purpose of making war.
  Our war power is given clearly by the Constitution, but it is a 
muscle. And if we do not exercise it, it will not hold our weight. And 
Congress for years has allowed that muscle to atrophy.
  Mr. President, 50 years ago Republicans and Democrats alike tried to 
reinvigorate our war power with an eye to restoring the authority that 
Congress possesses but which the Vietnam war had eroded. We must not 
ignore that law now.
  For the sake of all 13 families that have already lost someone to 
this senseless directionless war, for the sake of future generations 
who may be sent into battle without the approval of Congress or the 
American people, by a President grown too fond of war, this has to be 
the moment we stand up. This has to be the moment we say enough.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in just a few hours, it will be 60 days 
since Donald Trump officially notified Congress he was dragging us into 
one of the most foolish foreign misadventures in American history. Pete 
Hegseth can't just hit the pause button on that countdown, not when 
American troops are in harm's way.
  For 60 days, Trump has blundered, stumbled, and straggled through 
this mess of his own making. For 60 days, prices on everything from gas 
to groceries have soared at a rate not seen in years. For 60 days, 
military families have stayed up at night, praying their loved ones 
won't join the ranks of the brave 13 American servicemembers killed and 
nearly 400 wounded. And after 60 days, Republicans have sat idle.
  Well, I say to my colleagues: Time is up. Republicans, stop sitting 
out. Start speaking up. The American people have had enough. They have 
been calling for peace for weeks. Americans literally cannot afford 
this war to drag on, not when gas costs $4.30 a gallon--$4.30 a 
gallon--and inflation just hit a record for over 3 years for 3.5 
percent, higher inflation than we have had in a long time. And that 
means people pay more for just about everything.
  This sixth vote on the Democrats' War Powers Act is different than 
the first five. The 60-day threshold for war powers is upon us. No more 
dodging. No more hiding. No more shirking. Republicans need to help us 
end this illegal, costly war. They should have done it long ago. The 
most important vote a Senator can take is on matters of war and peace.
  I hold our Republican colleagues to show an ounce of courage our 
brave members are showing in the field every day as this war continues 
and to do what is right. Do your duty.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I know of no further debate.


                      Vote on Motion to Discharge

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
discharge.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and The Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Tuberville).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Armstrong
     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fetterman

[[Page S2158]]


     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moreno
     Murkowski
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Moran
     Murray
     Tuberville
  The motion was rejected.
  (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The majority leader.

                          ____________________